Testing needs some requirements, to compare the release candidate to.
Now of course with game testing, requirements could be a vague/generic "is this change fun", which is completely subjective. Which is the crux of the issue, because you *can* refine such requirements, and restate them like:
So this was either a problem of insufficient input to the testing team, or their feedback was simply not taken into consideration, because someone really wanted to push out the changes. At this point the teams seem to be in damage-control mode, and we are still awaiting more rebalancing patches...
Now of course with game testing, requirements could be a vague/generic "is this change fun", which is completely subjective. Which is the crux of the issue, because you *can* refine such requirements, and restate them like:
- Is X nerf too strong?
- Does this affect many people's playstyle?
- Does this affect daily activities for many players?
- If the backlash is strong, do we have a plan? Do we rollback?
- Are the prepared PR statements sufficiently satisfying and detailed? (yes, PR releases can be a testing artifact, in a sense)
So this was either a problem of insufficient input to the testing team, or their feedback was simply not taken into consideration, because someone really wanted to push out the changes. At this point the teams seem to be in damage-control mode, and we are still awaiting more rebalancing patches...
---
My home is always sweet Yrkanis..